Which video card do you use?

Blunderbuss · Post by **Blunderbuss** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 5:44 pm

Some of the newer strategy games use powerful 3D graphics engines (eg. C & C Generals). I was wondering what sort of card is necessary to play that sort of game at a reasonable speed. The minimum specification given on the back of a game's box is rarely a realistic guide to what is needed.

So, what type of card do you use, and has it ever struggled to adequately display a particular game?

I'm using a Radeon 9000LE (don't laugh! I didn't know much about computers when I bought this PC), and so far it's been alright. Then again, the only up-to-date game I've bought is Rise of Nations.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 6:18 pm

Having seen recent games, and having seen the cards on friends computers, if you didn't start sweating profusely when you were examining the cards you might get, you have not found the cards you will likely need.

My latest viewed card, was a Radeon 9800 Pro. Cost my friend well an obscene amount of cash heheh (quite a few hundred). Of course in 6 months this card will have lost 1/3 the price in all likelihood.

All the games I have seen recently (whether the game sucks or not) will play best (read it will suck otherwise) on machines with cards that are sooooooo much more than the average boring wargame (read adequate for die hard wargamers that prefer Steel Panthers) will require.

Which is to say, if you are a stick in the mud like me, save your cash for games like I play. If you are into the latest 3d real time stuff and shooter games or online stuff, get ready to need more video card power (but then I suppose that comment is hardly a shock eh).

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 6:47 pm

Well, I use a GeForce 2 GTS. Haven't yet encountered a game it didn't run. Although there probably are such games in the FPS genre..last one of those I played was Return to Castle Wolfenstein and that ran quite well.

Voriax

Blunderbuss · Post by **Blunderbuss** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 7:27 pm

I do intend to upgrade at some point, but there is no way I'm going to shell out £300+. In fact, I think I'll give it at least another ten months and then buy the best card available for under £100.

BrubakerII · Post by **BrubakerII** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 4:14 am

I like Voriax am using a Geforce2 though mine the Asus Pro version. Despite the feeling you can get from reading magazines, I would think 75% or more people out there still have a Geforce 2 based card in their machines hence the reason many games still work okay on them; most developers design with the 'common' man in mind.

I think Les's advice is good in that if you simply wish to play 2d strategic type games your current card is fine. If you want to view the latest realtime and FPS code around you do need to think about upgrading. Personally I wouldn't buy a topline card at this point - I would wait another 6 months. With the changes in both processor designs and the new Nvidea release on the horizon things are about to start moving a whole lot quicker. For my money I would be looking at a Radeon 9500 or a Nvidea Ti4200 based card. These are mid priced, have a solid history of driver updates, and have been around long enough to sort the bugs out. In fact, because I am on holidays, I think I might go and price one of the buggers myself

Brubaker

Huskalator · Post by **Huskalator** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:12 am

GeForce 4 Ti 4400

I bought it just for Morrowind, which was stupid to do, but it has come in handy for many of my other games like IL-2 so it was a good purchase in the end.

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:36 am

ATi Mobility Radeon 7500

Geforce 2 Ultra 64 meg on my other machine

sandman20 · Post by **sandman20** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:27 pm

GeForce 4 Ti4200 128 Mb.
Quite good & cheap average card nowadays and I haven't had any problems with it so far.

Wallenstein · Post by **Wallenstein** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:45 pm

Originally posted by Deep Breakfast
GeForce 4 Ti 4400

I bought it just for Morrowind, which was stupid to do, but it has come in handy for many of my other games like IL-2 so it was a good purchase in the end.

I bought my Ti 4200 for the same reason and haven´t played a graphic-intensive game since then.

Blunderbuss · Post by **Blunderbuss** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:03 pm

Hey, Deep Breakfast. I play IL-2 Sturmovik as well (offline only). I was actually surprised at how good it looks on my PC. It looks about ten times better than Combat Flight Simulator 2

(I hate that game).

The only time I've really noticed my video card struggling is when I tried a demo. version of Unreal 2: The Awakening. The explosions really slowed it down. I'm not all that bothered, because I wouldn't actually buy the full game.

Paul Wykes · Post by **Paul Wykes** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 10:07 pm

A tear always wells into my eyes when people talk about system specs and graphics cards.

I have a lowly TNT2 32MB. Fine for SPWAW etc, but stuggling at any of the newer titles. Looks as I`ll even be struggling with CL with this card.

This coupled with my humble 400Mhz means I need to do some serious upgrading soon.

Reddog · Post by **Reddog** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 12:00 am

Ive been there too paul-TNT2 16 Mb HERE - New computer now on the way tho G4 TI4200 128 512 RAM -YEEHAAAA Games here i come.

BrubakerII · Post by **BrubakerII** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:23 am

Originally posted by Wallenstein
I bought my Ti 4200 for the same reason and haven´t played a graphic-intensive game since then.

Wallenstein I think you have a good year in store for you then

Brubaker

LarkinVB · Post by **LarkinVB** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 2:29 pm

Radeon 9500 Pro does deliver the best performance for the buck ratio. Since I rarely play 3D games I will stick with my Geforce MX 440 for a while.

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 4:53 am

Originally posted by LarkinVB
Radeon 9500 Pro does deliver the best performance for the buck ratio. Since I rarely play 3D games I will stick with my Geforce MX 440 for a while.

The latest version of DirectX is DirectX 9.

It has features that enables game designers to improve graphic effects on ALL games.

Matrix is currently producing a bunch of 2D games

I checked on the CL forum. DirectX 8 is required but the designers will use some of the features of DirextX 9 to improve the graphics.

Only players with DirectX 9 will see these graphics.

To use DirextX 9 you need one of a latest video cards - unless you can downoad an update for your card.

Ergo, the latest video cards will soon be required for 2D games.

BrubakerII · Post by **BrubakerII** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:04 am

This is true Joe though it is also true that very few current cards can actually utilise dx9 features. I still think you are better off buying a fully diectx8.1 compatible card for around $350 Aud than to buy a $800 Aud card that cannot fully be utilised yet. Also in order to get the very best performance from a top line card you need a mother board capable of handling the bus speed, 8x AGP etc. So a $800 card purchase might well turn into a 1500$ upgrade

Second best is sometimes the most viable choice.

Brubaker

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 6:15 am

Actually I have DX9 on a system using a mediocre card (or at least the talk implies it is medoiocre hehe).

I have a PCI 32 meg Radeon 7000 on a more or less adequate system.

But I must comment, my main groan when buying new anything, seems to mirror what Bruebaker said. A new item, easily escalates into a massive upgrade. One part needs this in order to run that, so you can employ the other thing.

Ian Packham · Post by **Ian Packham** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:35 am

I rarely upgrade individual pieces. My strategy is to purchase a rig with specs close to the top end and keep this rig for 3 years then purchase a completely new rig. This has worked so far - I purchased my first rig in 1997, second rig in 2000 and now I will purchase again in 2003.

The problem with upgrading individual parts is that the machine will become imbalanced - some parts are fast, other parts are slow. You need to design your rig so that there is synergywith no bottlenecks that hamper the data flow.

So talking about video cards as a separate item is somewhat meaningless. You dont place a 6 liter V8 engine into a Beatle chassis - the poor thing will fall apart.

So design your rig with the correct amount of RAM, video card, HD space etc that reflects upon the speed of the CPU and motherboard.

Personally I buy rigs that have six months old technology - you get great specs without paying premium prices.

In Spetember I plan to buy;
P2.8Gig (200mhz) (to be overclocked)
motherboard with 200Mhz FSB
512MG DDR RAM (anything more is excessive)
Radeon 9700 64MG
40Gig 10,000RPM HD

I will keep my existing DVD player, floppy drive, sound card, mouse, keyboard etc so helping keep the cost down.

moore4807 · Post by **moore4807** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 2:30 pm

I dont think they even sell 2.8Ghz with less than 333 FSB. I understand the overclocking aspect but since you cant overclock more than 33%-66% of the hertz (think heat...) then why not spend the extra $50-100 and get the 533/800 FSB. Its really not worth the aggravation for the small increase in speed (you can get 3.06Ghz by my quick mental math) and still only be pushing a 400 FSB.

The motherboard makes all the difference to me...

by the way GeForce3 TI4200 128mb card....

Frank W. · Post by **Frank W.** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 4:38 pm

ATI radeon 8500 LE.

fine card, still seems to be enough for all
games i play. i have a 1400 mhz. celeron
and 512 MB of infineon value ram.

Which video card do you use?

Which video card do you use?

btdt

200 FSB????